BRJIENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 984 · Decided: 14-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BRJJENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARI AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
B 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
OCTOBER 14, 1992 
[S. RANGANATHAN, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Motor Vehicles: 
C 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988/Motor Vehicles Act, 1939/U.P. Motor 
Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976: 
Sections 2(7),(22) 88/Sections 2(3),(15)(18-A), 63(6) Section 
2(d)-'Mini bus'-Wliether falls within the definition 'mini cab', 'mini car' or 
'Omni bus'-Contract Carriage pe1111it granted to mini bus-Whether covered 
D under 'Contract Carriage'-Holders of such pe1111it-Whether could pick up 
individual passengers at the starting point of journey-Difference between 
stage carriage and Contract Carriag&-What is. 
The definitions of 
11Motor Car", "Omni bus," and "stage carriage" as 
E contained in the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, remained the same In 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, the definition of 'contract carriage" 
was changed in the New Act. It defines that a contract carriage operates 
from point to point and without stopping to pick up or set down pas-
sengers not included in the contract anywhere during the journey and 
includes "maxi.cab" and "motor cab"; "motor cab" is also defined in the New 
F Act; but not "Mini bus". 
The Respondent-State in 1971 decided to adopt a liberal policy of 
issuing contract carriage permits to mini buses permitting them to ply 
their vehicles on the various routes In the respondent-State. However, 
G there w~s no definition of "mini bus" at that time in any enactment. 
Subsequently the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special provision) Act, 1976 came 
Into force, which defined "mini bus" as the one constructed or adopted to 
carry not more than 35 passengers excluding driver. 
The appellants raised the question as to whether the contract car- ; 
H rlage permit holders of mini buses in the Respondent-State are entitled to 
984 
BRIJENDRA CHAUDHARI v. STATE OFU.P. 
985 
pick up individual passengers at the starting point of their journey, in their A 
Writ Petitions before the High Court. The Full Bench of the High Court 
having dismissed the Writ Petitions, the appellants have come in appeal 
to this Court. 
It was argued on behalf of the appellants that though under the 
contract carriage permit only those persons who were mentioned In the B 
contract could be picked up, and stopping on the route to pick up or set 
down passengers is prohibited, there could be several contracts because 
the definition states that it is motor vehicle which "carries passenger or 
passengers"; and that the latter part of the definition of contract carriage 
which says that "notwithstanding that separate fares are charged for Its C 
passengers" would show that there could be separate fares for the pas· 
sengers and that therefore individual passengers could be picked up at the 
starting point and it is an exception to an otherwise contract carriage 
permit under the main part of the definition contained in Section 2(7) of 
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 
This Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court and dismissed 
the appeals for reasons to follow. 
Now, giving its reasons for the dismissal, this Court, 
D 
HELD: 1. There is no definition of"mini bus" in the Motor Vehicles Act E 
botooe bas to look up to its definition only in the U.P.Act. In the light of that 
definition and the other definitions in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 only a 
motor vehicle coostrocted or adapted to carry not more than thirty five 
passengers excluding the driver and which is not a "Maxi Cab" or "Motor 
Cab" will normally be treated as a mini bus. It will not come under the 
delinition of 'motor car" lo Section 2(26) as It is a transport vehicle within F 
the meaning of Section 2(47). But the definition of"Omol bus" Is wide enough 
to include within it mini bus as well. Therefore a contract carriage permit 
granted in respect of a mini bus will fall under the main part of the definition 
lo Section 2(7) of the new Act. Mini bus is neither a maxi cab nor a motor cab 
and, therefore, the exception provided in the last part of the definition will 
not be applicable to the case of a mini bus. In fact, It was not the case of the 
appellants themselves that they are running a maxi cab or that their vehicles 
are motor cabs. In such circumstances, the contract carriage permit holders 
of mini buses are not entitled to pick up individual passengers at the starting 
point of their journey. [990-H, 991 A·B, 993-F) 
G 
H 
986 
SUPREME COURT RE

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.